Tuesday's election and its results were almost funny, if that's a word I can use. Voters wanted change two years ago, so they went with it. Now they wanted change again, and they went with it. Two years from now, they'll want change again and will probably go for it. I know it's the American way, but two years is such a short time to assess programs and now take the chance that those programs may have succeeded, but might not because of change.

Change is good, for the most part--I know that. But in today's papers, they said this victory was not so much that Republicans were more powerful at the polls, but that the Democrats didn't show up to vote. Yuck.

Democrat or Republican, it's going to take time to get this economy on the upturn in a consistent manner. I hope the bubble never gets as big as it was prior to this. People are looking for a McDonald's fix (instant) and it isn't there. The electorate will reassess in two years. Will it be time for another change? The pendulum is swinging so much faster these days! You can't keep up with the minds of voters.

Great post, Tee, and you are correct on so many levels! In my opinion, the results reflect an electorate that has a very short memory. On another thread in the Wild Wild West Forum, someone mentioned a study which reported that the source of much of the federal deficit can be traced to the George W. Bush administration, with the huge spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the equally huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Apparently, government and economics (which were required subjects when I was in high school) are given very short shrift in today's classrooms. Otherwise, the average voter would realize that it takes time to fix the damage that these very irresponsible economic policies have done to this country.

The economy is still in a very delicate condition, with unemployment still a very huge problem. Where I live (Florida), the voters have chosen as the new governor a person who came very close to being indicted for being involved in a massive fraud on Medicare by the company he headed (Columbia/HCA). This man claims he can create new jobs in Florida--pardon me, but I am extremely skeptical of this individual!! For that matter, I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims that a return to the policies of the previous administration will fix what's wrong in this country, or that a massive shrinkage of the federal government is the answer to this country's problems.

I would also add that many of those who aspire to public office these days seem to be proud of the fact that (a) they seem to have absolutely no intellectual curiousity and (b) they seem almost ignorant of this country's political, social, and economic history. Do we really want to have people like this in public office making public policy? I hope not!_________________"Have fun storming the castle"--Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride"

Obama had a tremendous amount of energy behind him as he took office. Record numbers of young people and even old independent cynics like me were actually excited about the possibility of change. During the campaign, he spoke to the sickness at the heart of national politics--that it doesn't matter if we have Democrats or Republicans in office as long as powerful corporate interests control the politicians. He promised he would bring in transparency instead of closed-door deals, post legislation on line, padlock the revolving door. He was going to throw open the window, let the sunshine in, and together we could break the power of the lobbyists that work against the interest of the average person.

Yes, we can! was about taking back our government. It was a bold, ambitious goal, and what hurts isn't that he failed. It's that he didn't even try.

Almost from the minute he got in, it was back to business as usual. Oh, you can point to individual pieces of legislation and say, look, he's doing some good things, but that's not the point. Washington is just the same as it ever was. Obama is right in the thick of the back-room deal-making. Even if he gets a good deal from time to time, that was never the change he asked us to believe in.

And it's not a matter of being too impatient. Nobody expected him to reform things overnight, people were prepared to back him to the hilt as this epic battle raged. But there was no battle. The only squabbles going on are the same old Washington power plays, fought by the same deal-makers who have been running the show for years.

That's why Obama lost the huge wave of support that carried him into the White House, and the saddest thing is that he doesn't seem to have a clue.

Of course the economy is a factor--but if Obama was really the crusader he set himself up to be, you'd have seen a very different election. Oh, he'd still have his detractors, but if he had done--or tried to do--the things he promised, he would have had tons of passionate defenders, too. But he didn't. The best the Democrats could do was, "At least we're not the Tea Party," and it wasn't good enough. Obama was our last hope for any meaningful change, and now that there's nothing left to believe in, a whole lot of people just stayed home.

Yes, we can! was about taking back our government. It was a bold, ambitious goal, and what hurts isn't that he failed. It's that he didn't even try.

Of course, we don't really know if Obama tried or not. I suspect he tried and realized he does have to jump thru the hoops, after all. Lots of negotiating with different factions to even get your legislation to the table, much less discussing it and initiating actions. It looked easier than he thought, I suspect. He should have known better, but he was new to everything. Not enough wheeling and dealing under his belt. That's what everyone wants changed; it'll take a long time before that will happen, if ever, for any president. In the meantime, he may have to employ present means in order to get the changes he wanted.

LizE wrote:

Obama was our last hope for any meaningful change, and now that there's nothing left to believe in, a whole lot of people just stayed home.

First of all, there's lots left to believe in. If Obama were the only hope for change, then, yes, we are doomed. He's not. We should never think or believe that only one person can change the establishment. Second of all, no one person can do it by themselves, anyway. It takes more people and time.

I'm sorry, but staying home from the polls doesn't work for me. Did anyone happen to check out the After Hours Blog here on AAR titled "Voting," written by Jane Granville? Excellent article. She included two different dialogues from Craig Ferguson that are not only informative, but humorous as well. He addresses this very issue. He states that one of the statistics point to the fact that people stay away from elections because of politics. He asks (as a naturalized citizen), are they alive? One cannot avoid politics; it seeps into almost every core of our living. We can't use that excuse. Not voting does not mean you're casting a vote, as some people believe. We cannot stay away from the voting booths.

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off on a tangent here (surprise, surprise). But we in America have a great system and apathy has no place in it. We use it or lose it. And everyone knows what a country looks like that does not have its freedoms and the abilities to express them. Exercising your right to vote is integral to preserving those priveleges.

I totally agree with you about voting, Tee. Sometimes if I can't stomach either of the two mainstream candidates I will vote for another candidate who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected, but I still vote.

I got a little angry with a friend of mine at work last week when she said she wasn't voting. It was the same tired "it doesn't make a difference, they are all criminals" argument she had. I told her I don't want to hear one word of complaint from her about any politics or politician from now on.

Otherwise, the average voter would realize that it takes time to fix the damage that these very irresponsible economic policies have done to this country

Yes, I think that it will take a considerable amount of time to undo a lot of the damage of previous policies, probably not only from one administration, but others, as well. We could cite them coming both from Republicans and Democrats.

Beth W wrote:

It was the same tired "it doesn't make a difference, they are all criminals" argument she had.

And she may be correct, but it doesn't hold as an excuse for not voting. Besides, to me, that's a cop-out for an excuse. There may be some that don't deserve to be on the ballot, but not all. The women of many years ago who fought to get the vote for women would be appalled at how voting is ignored by both men and women these days. When we see people in other countries threatened and possibly beaten if they show up at the voting places, that should strengthen our resolve to hold on to what we've got here and exercise our voting right.

Of course, we don't really know if Obama tried or not. I suspect he tried and realized he does have to jump thru the hoops, after all. Lots of negotiating with different factions to even get your legislation to the table, much less discussing it and initiating actions. It looked easier than he thought, I suspect. He should have known better, but he was new to everything. Not enough wheeling and dealing under his belt. That's what everyone wants changed; it'll take a long time before that will happen, if ever, for any president. In the meantime, he may have to employ present means in order to get the changes he wanted.

This characterization of Obama as an ineffective, starry-eyed idealist all adrift in big bad Washington doesn’t line up with the facts. The minute he brought in Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, it was clear he was no stranger to “wheeling and dealing.” Subsequent events bore that out. Though polls showed the American people overwhelmingly wanted a public option, Obama gave it away before negotiations started—and he did it in a closed-door meeting. Another issue that united people across the board was restrictions on Wall Street. What we got was financial "reform" riddled with loopholes, the result of a truly bipartisan effort to defraud the public of any meaningful protection from further thievery and the strong possibility of another meltdown. The Obama White House was in the thick of that battle, fighting—not for us, but for Wall Street. (I recommend Matt Taibbi’s “Wall Street’s Big Win” if you want the gory details). The man who said he wanted to engage the Muslim world has instead increased drone bombings and assassination squads and kill teams. So one can know whether or not he tried-it's not a big mystery, it just means paying attention to what he has done.

Tee wrote:

First of all, there's lots left to believe in. If Obama were the only hope for change, then, yes, we are doomed. He's not. We should never think or believe that only one person can change the establishment. Second of all, no one person can do it by themselves, anyway. It takes more people and time.

No one expected him to do it himself. That’s why he had this huge groundswell of supporters willing to become involved in the process—because for a minute there, it seemed that average citizens would have a representative in the White House. We don’t. People are incredibly disillusioned. Hopefully, that will soon change into positive action, but you’re dead right that we can’t rely on any politicians to do it for us.

Tee wrote:

And everyone knows what a country looks like that does not have its freedoms and the abilities to express them.

Let’s see, would it look anything like …

- Private financial firms make insane gambles, take the profits and live like kings--and stick the taxpayers with the losses. They don’t suffer for the havoc they wreak, but ordinary citizens see their jobs vanish, their pensions shrink and their social services cut. They are told this is the way it has to be because the banks are doing “God’s work.”

- Corporate shareholders and executives--some who have been convicted of crimes and paid a tiny fine, some currently are under indictment—continue to profit hugely due to fiscal policy they help write while foreclosures skyrocket. Government refuses to help ordinary people keep their homes because the money might fall into the “wrong hands.”

- Homes and property may be seized without warning by banks that can’t prove their legal right to them.

- Citizens can be thrown into prison, tortured, and kept there for years without being charged with a crime.

- Due process is not a right, but a privilege granted by a president with the power to order citizen assassination—even if the citizen has never been charged with a crime.

- Warrantless wiretapping is no longer a crime, and the government fights to gain access to every form of communication—social networks, Blackberries, telephone, e-mail.

An awful lot of people live in countries where their votes mean nothing. We’re turning into one of those countries. Step by step, it’s happening while we’re distracted by divisive party politics and fear-mongering dispensed by the corporate media (Mosques at Ground Zero! Death panels! We’re being taken over by socialists—or fascists—or Tea Party nutjobs!) Voting in ignorance might make people feel good about themselves by giving them the illusion of participation, but until folks realize that an informed citizenry means taking the time and effort to look beyond the headlines, expect to see more wars (largely waged in secret) and a huge transfer of public wealth into private hands. The top 10% will continue to profit in leaps and bounds (as they are now) while for the rest of us it means high unemployment, rising foreclosures and a continued erosion of our civil rights.

An awful lot of people live in countries where their votes mean nothing. We’re turning into one of those countries.

I don't agree, but then that's alright. It has always been known that voting for the legislators who seem to have similar goals as the voter is really the way to go. I will always feel strongly that staying home on election day is never the right choice. Somewhere on the ballot are people who may make a difference. By allowing others to do that choosing takes something away from us.

I don't agree with the Tea Party's goals, but haven't they had a voice in this election? I give them credit for that. Really, all is not lost; but we can never give in to apathy.

Sorry, I thought that's what you meant when you said in your post: Obama was our last hope for any meaningful change, and now that there's nothing left to believe in, a whole lot of people just stayed home.

LizE wrote:

Tee, do you have any idea who is funding the Tea Party candidates? Who is funding the candidates you do support? I'm not advocating apathy, but education.

No, I can't answer those questions. And I won't pretend that I do know them just for the sake of going on here. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but funding comes from all kinds of sources for anyone and anything and I know that we would all be surprised at some of the contributors. Regardless, anything you or I say will not change the other's mind right now. You are definitely on the right track with education, though. Obviously, I need some of it, too.

Tee, becoming informed is such a huge undertaking that it's impossible for anyone to do it alone. We all need to share in order to learn. The things I have discovered lately disturb me greatly (as you probably gathered). I really didn't mean to sound so confrontational. and if I offended you, I am sorry. I hope you can look beyond the tone to the message and at least consider the points I was attempting to make.

I really didn't mean to sound so confrontational. and if I offended you, I am sorry. I hope you can look beyond the tone to the message and at least consider the points I was attempting to make.

Oh, Liz, you did not need to say that to me. I'm the one who originated the question in the thread, after all. Of course, I expected disagreement. That's what "politics" is all about. You did great and you (and others) have a right to what you believe. It's better when we know what we're talking about (or think we do), but who couldn't benefit from more education? I can and that's a fact. Please, continue voicing your concerns. I take no offense. This is America (to sound very clichéd).

The electorate is volatile. We are going from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's because we are so uncertain of what is happening. People are losing their jobs, their homes, their fears are escalating and uncertainty is scary. What is going on?

I think we are in a correction. Times are a changin. Hopefully for the better but possibly not. I am a strong believer in moving forward not backwards.

If we regress we are going to stagnate and we will become just another 3rd world country. We have some difficult problems to tackle and I feel we are on the right track. I would love to see "Medicare for all" but our Obamacare is better than nothing. I wish the Wall Street reforms were tougher but we got the best we could get. We need to focus on making our country better for the hard working Americans not corporations.

If the Republicans don't produce they will be out in two years. Most Americans want fast results and have no patience. We gave Bush 8 years to drive us in the ditch and are angry with Obama for not fixing everything in two short years.

The electorate is volatile. We are going from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's because we are so uncertain of what is happening. People are losing their jobs, their homes, their fears are escalating and uncertainty is scary. What is going on? ...[snip]... If the Republicans don't produce they will be out in two years. Most Americans want fast results and have no patience. We gave Bush 8 years to drive us in the ditch and are angry with Obama for not fixing everything in two short years.

Exactly, in the first case. People are confused, nervous and scared. They want it fixed---now. Won't happen. Where were all their concerns when houses that were purchased for $30,000 25 years ago or so were being appraised at $170,000? A little unrealistic, maybe? Just how much could that balloon be blown up before it popped? Well, we found out, didn't we? It had to stop and it did. Too bad we didn't see it coming and applied the brakes more slowly.

I agree with your second statement also. It's not going to be fixed in two years. Actually, I think the electorate, especially those who voted so overwhelmingly for Obama, thought it would be fixed the day after inauguration. That may sound silly, but I believe it's almost true. No president is given a magic wand on that day. It just doesn't work that way. But being scared, the mind doesn't work logically all the time.